Rule V selection last February. Not a stud, but a middle of the rotation starter.....or a good player. Proof people lose good players all the time. I can find more examples if I cared to spend the time.

Your idea is unanimously thought to be garbage. Instead of having a discussion with me YOU started attacking me personally. Bush League.

Rule V selection last February. Not a stud, but a middle of the rotation starter.....or a good player. Proof people lose good players all the time. I can find more examples if I cared to spend the time.

Your idea is unanimously thought to be garbage. Instead of having a discussion with me YOU started attacking me personally. Bush League.

I am not attacking you personally. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning.

You brought up Rule 5 as an example to support your position. I pointed out that what HBD has done with Rule 5 supports one of the points I've tried (unsuccessfully) to make. That WIS has & probably should break from following MLB rules exactly when that's better for the game.

You said you disagree because of Reason X. I pointed out Reason X isn't a valid. Might be 1000 other reasons. That's not one.

You responded by changing the topic to something similar, but different.

That's what a lot of people do. First they make up their minds. Then they try to come up with stories to defend that position. If a flaw in their story or reasoning is exposed, they go sideways and often dig in twice as hard with their initial belief. LIke a kid on a playground caught cheating or saying something that wasn't true putting their heads down, shuffling their feet, and saying something like, "my dad can beat up your dad".

Can we not debate the merits of the player you put up as an example? Yes, he's fine. Would have a role on most teams. You can pick up players of similar in the remains of the FA pile for probably a few hundred thousand more than $327K. They're important parts, value for money, but not huge difference makers.

I admire you'd post an example of you obviously taking advantage of someone who doesn't really know HBD. You didn't cheat. I'd have picked him if he was there when my Rule 5 pick came along. But,seriously, you're post was specifically about FA bidding, but was generally about what's good for HBD. I admire the sentiment but is this really the specific example to use? Fleecing an inexperience player? That's for the overall good?

"That's what a lot of people do. First they make up their minds. Then they try to come up with stories to defend that position. If a flaw in their story or reasoning is exposed, they go sideways and often dig in twice as hard with their initial belief."

Boy, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Despite the fact that not a single person supports your proposal and everybody has dismissed it for pretty much the same reason (it doesn't solve the "problem" you're trying to solve, and it removes strategy from the game). you've doubled down on the idea in insisting that everybody but you is wrong.

Huh? One paragraph you say Bart Hogg is not that good.....the very next paragraph.....I am taking advantage of someone to get him. What am I to do with this kind of nonsense? The guy I picked him up from had about 20 season of experience by they way. You could have known that with an extra 20 seconds of checking and 5 minutes of less typing, and saved the accusation. It is for the good of HBD that a 20 season player learns to protect his players.

Huh? Now you are comparing me to a child? Yet another personal attack? I though you said you didn't resort to those?

Two things:

1.) You have attacked me personally now 3 times in the past two days and all 3 were pure silliness. Stop doing that.
2.) Lets agree that your idea is meritless, and will in fact never happen.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the Rule 5 change ONLY protects you if you are not checking in on your teams (i.e. the team is on auto-pilot). I think it will allow a coach who is checking in, but doesn't put his good prospects on the 40-man to lose even his #1 overall pick.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/26/2012 2:23:00 PM (view original):"That's what a lot of people do. First they make up their minds. Then they try to come up with stories to defend that position. If a flaw in their story or reasoning is exposed, they go sideways and often dig in twice as hard with their initial belief."

Boy, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Despite the fact that not a single person supports your proposal and everybody has dismissed it for pretty much the same reason (it doesn't solve the "problem" you're trying to solve, and it removes strategy from the game). you've doubled down on the idea in insisting that everybody but you is wrong.

I challenged the reasons some people gave for disagreeing. Some have been differences of opinion. I think I acknowledged those. Some reasons were based on "facts" that are not correct. I tried to point those out. Some presented one aspect of their reason. I tried to pont out they were ignoring out other factors.

Other than calling out the statements that are not true, I don't think you'll find me claiming I'm right & anyone is wrong.

tecwrg - Are you still claiming some form of proxy bidding would not take less time or allow more flexible time? If you can, please set aside more/less strategy or any other better or worse impacts. Just yes or no on less/flexible time and, if you would, why you belive that.

I don't like the idea. It's nowhere near real life free agent bidding. Not that I'm saying that the present system couldn't be improved on to make it more realistic, but this would make it less so. This is a MLB simulation. Not EBay. I don't have time to read through all of these 10 pages, so sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has already said.

Posted by tufft on 10/27/2012 6:40:00 PM (view original):tecwrg - Are you still claiming some form of proxy bidding would not take less time or allow more flexible time? If you can, please set aside more/less strategy or any other better or worse impacts. Just yes or no on less/flexible time and, if you would, why you belive that.

Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to play that game. I (and others) have already explained to you that (a) it doesn't solve the problem you are trying to solve, and (b) why it's a bad idea. I can not and will not put "less strategy" aside because that's exactly what it does. Pretending that it doesn't for the sake of discussion is pointless.

If you still continue to refuse to accept what everybody is consistently telling you, then I'm not sure anything "new" that I can say that will make you see the light.

I can't believe I made it through this thread. (Though I admit by Page 7 I was skimming through marathon posts.)

There seems to be a major flaw in the logic of the two suggestions:

1) Real-time bidding to help people who can't log in all of the time.
- Real time bidding will allow people who live on this site the opportunity to immediately outbid anyone who logs in occasionally. They will have immediate feedback in order to keep nudging up and up until they have the winning bid. It makes it even easier for the folks who use the budget page and the trade building page to have instant information on their competition.

2) E-bay style bidding to eliminate "bad" contracts.
- For people that sign these deals, I don't want them to be bailed out by the system so that they can then dump a ton of money into a player that people actually do want. Why would you want to make the game easier for someone who hasn't taken the time to learn what kind of players are actually valuable? How does that make the people that have studied to learn the game feel about the system? You keep making out like people care how much money Joe Fakeplayer makes, but that is absolutely not the case. What they actually care about is removing the available payroll of his new owner out of the FA market.
(As a second point as a commish, I have actually found that on the few occasions where one of my franchises was left with bad contracts, there are people lining up for the "challenge" of restoring the team. I have a harder time filling middle of the road franchises.)

It seems like rather than a complete overhaul of free agency as you propose you would have a better shot at accomplishing your objectives by doing two things:

A) Increase Time from Outbid to signing: As it stands now, once players have started signing, you can miss only one cycle of activity in which you are informed you are outbid and if you don't make it online until the next cycle, he may have already signed with the other team. By making it mandatory for there to be 2 or even 3 cycles before outbidding results in signing (with the exception being the final day of FA), then that would actually benefit the more casual players.

B) Hide our budgets: If you take away the budget information, the hard core folks will have less information to defeat the casual folks. After the strategy was used against me, I looked into and found that when you are dealing with the big budget FAs, it is not that hard to use the team annual budget pages in conjunction with the Trade Offers page (which shows budgets with your bidding numbers included except for bonus money) to figure out who exactly is bidding against you and how much they are bidding.